Michael Maiello's picture

    Snappy Gorebacks To Stupid Questions

    Then Why Is It Snowing, Mr. Gore?

    The former Vice-President and climate change activist offers a number of responses to this most pressing question.

    By your reckoning, the Earth is 6,000 years old.  Give it time.

    Because you keep voting for people who make sure that you can’t afford to retire some place tropical.

    It snows on the righteous and the just and, well… you. 

    It’s not snow, it’s angel kisses. Feel better now?

    The Ski Resort Industrial Complex.


    It’s a cover-up.  President Obama doesn’t want you to know that he’s secretly turned our climate into Kenya’s.

    Wow, you’ve completely out-thought the entire global scientific community with one pithy phrase.  You should call Harvard.  I bet they’d like to study you.

    I’ll try to help you understand.  The Earth’s climate is like a series of tubes…

    You know I won a Nobel Prize for this, right?  I mean, when you meet a guy at a party and you find out he’s a doctor do you start asking him about your neck pain?  You do, don’t you?  You’re that guy.  You shouldn’t be that guy. Really.  Don't be that guy.


    'Round here, the snow stays politely up in the Sierras...

    FOR NOW.

    When I have the unfortunate circumstance of meeting "that guy" and others like him, I direct their attention to this guy:

    He uses small words to explain climate change problem. This is important since it seems simple vocabulary is the only format that even has the possibility of making "that guy" get it. I won't hold my breath though.


    Good video, but I saw the same method....true/false -- Yes/no matrix used o discuss health care reform.

    In the winter, the Northern hemisphere points away from the Sun, resulting in colder temperatures. This, combined with wind patterns picking up moisture over bodies of water leads to water vapor sublimating into ice crystals which then fall to the Earth due to their density being greater than that of air and the effects of gravity … leads to it snowing. 'k?

    Or is that not snappy enough?Innocent

    By the way, one of the facts that I'm amazed more people aren't familiar with is that in the Northern hemisphere we're actually closer to the sun in the Winter than in the Summer.

    But Jesus used the dimmer switch to turn the heat down.

    Perhaps the re-branding of "global warming" to "climate change" should have been to "climate instability" or maybe "climate shitstorm."  I'll contact the Department of Re-branding immediately.


    How about snowmageddeon?

    The view from my back door:


      20 Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, . . . (Matthew 24:20)Wink

    I'd hate to have to leave the house in this weather.

    They had ice in Scottsdale AZ  


    I just passed that Bible verse on to one of my atheist friends who recently got stuck at the airport as his "Bible verse of the day".

    I think the re-branding itself was a mistake. I don't know how many times I've run across global warming skeptics who think that the name change was made in order to allow for either global warming or global cooling (this combined with the global cooling myth from the '70s makes things worse). I try to explain to them that the "climate change" label includes "global warming" as a component, but also covers additional changes, but such explanations usually fall on deaf ears.

    Global Climate Destabilization?

    (sigh) Try re-branding it: Climate Terrorism!!

    Global Climate Destabilization..answers the question WHY

    It makes a point,  telling us Why 

    Why is it destabilized?  

    That a good one, I'll be using yours in the future.

    I used to say climatic change instead of global warming.

    I wish I knew why "warming on average, causing a host of weather pattern changes, among other things," is so hard to explain to people.

    Because many people do not properly understand the words "average" or "weather".

    Complex systems analysis versus faith and slogans?  I know where I put my money.

    Well I do ask him about the rash on my privates and he or she will turn to me and tell me they are all eyes, ears and throats.


    But if you introduce yourself as a tax attorney, well they will treat that rash right then and there.


    You don't happen to know anything about rashes...down there I mean?


    I don't know Des, I have to tell you, it is so damn hot where I am right now, holy crap, I've been literally melting for a few days. You would never be able to wear the belt and the boa here. No way.

    Anyway the real response to those jokers is: Oh do they teach Computational Thermodynamics classes at at Beck U now?

    Global warming, or yet Global Climate change as the author of the video above calls it, is nothing more than an exercise using occam's razor - it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer. In other words, nature itself is simple and that simpler hypotheses about nature are thus more likely to be true.

    Known Facts:

    1. Both northern and southern ice caps have been melting at tremendous rates never before recorded or known;

    2. Glacier ice is melting at rates never before seen or recorded. Such as the glaciers in Kenya, Stubital, Austria and the Zugspitz, Germany are almost extinct. Some others have already lost their entire ice mass.

    3. Global storm activity have increased in numbers and intensities never before seen or recorded.

    Science Question :

    Basic science...EDUCATION ALERT : 3rd grade science ... if ice melts what form does it take?

    a)  water    b) vapor

    (a) water - this would be correct in a 3rd grade science class. All one has to do is observe what happens to a tray of ice cubes once the tray is place on a table.

    (b) vapor - this would only occur over time once the ice has melted.

    The Big Question

    If ice melts and becomes water shouldn't low lying coast areas be flooded. There are reports of extremely shallow islands in the South Pacific where shorelines are lapping at the resident's doorsteps and some have had to be abandoned, but larger locales like Miami haven't experienced any problems with erosion of shorelines. Better yet, shouldn't the Netherlands be all under water by now if all that water has been released from their frozen prisons? Believe me, the Netherlands is extremely flat so it wouldn't take but a few feet of water to wash it all away.

    Simple Answer

    If ice melts, the melt has to go somewhere...it just doesn't disappear. If it's not increasing the fluid levels in the oceans, there where is it going? The only answer is the atmosphere. So the atmosphere has become the new home for all that water. The problem is the atmosphere has little to no mass so it can't contain all that excess water indefinitely so what goes up must come down

    Think of it this way. We have be holding one hell of a big party on Earth. And all parties involve a little drinking of some kind of fluids. Well, Mother Nature has been active at the party and has been drinking quite heavily. And now her bladder is full and she needs to relieve herself more frequently than normal.

    And a byproduct of this is during the winter, all that extra snow on the ground reflects sunlight which drives the temperature lower.

    So the warming melts the ice, puts more water into the atmosphere, which falls as torrential rain or snow storms, while reflecting the sunlight driving the temperature lower during the winter and I suspect higher than normal temperatures in the summer.

    Just a word of caution: the melting of the northern ice caps will not directly contribute to rising sea levels as they are sea ice. Since the sea ice displaces the water, when it melts, there is no change in displacement. (Glacial ice is a different story, of course.)

    Another factor contributing to rising sea levels is the fact that, for water warmer than 4 degrees Celsius, increasing the temperature of water results in an increase in volume.

    According to Vonnegut, our descendants are going to be furry, aquatic and playful, so it's all good.

    The polar ice caps are pure water....salt water doesn't freeze. So with the ice caps and glaicers melting, the melt takes on a whole new form...either water, which we can physically measure, or vapor, which we can't. Since the sea levels haven't risen to levels equal to the amount of global ice melt, the water must be changing into water vapor and it in the atmosphere....there's no other place for it to go it. And the increase in snow falls blanket the Earth' surface with more snow, which happens to be whiteand reflects sunlight (white reflects, dark absorbs) and therefore redirects the Sun's warm away from the earth and thus colder temperatures...does the term vicious cycle come to mind? The key here is where is the water from the melting ice caps and glaciers going? It doesn't just disappear off the face of the Earth. It's transformed into some other property....either liquid or vapor. If it's in the atmosphere then it will change the dynamics of global weather patterns. As I said...what goes up must come down...we just haven't a clue when it will come down, how much and in what form.

    Actually, salt water will freeze, it just has a lower freezing point (how low depends on the salinity of the water, but sea water typically freezes at -2 degrees Celsius). Still, I believe most of the polar ice caps are fresh water as you mention due to most of that ice coming from æons of snow being crushed into ice. That's significant because salt water is actually densest at its freezing point, whereas freshwater is densest at 3.9 degrees Celsius.

    Since the sea levels haven't risen to levels equal to the amount of global ice melt…

    I'm not sure what you mean there, but there are several factors that determine sea level, with ice melt just being one. Two other factors are the relationship between temperature and density of seawater (making sea levels rise more) and rebound effects of the land masses no longer being depressed by glaciers (making sea levels effectively rise less - relative to the land masses in question, that is).

    And the increase in snow falls blanket the Earth' surface with more snow, which happens to be whiteand reflects sunlight (white reflects, dark absorbs) and therefore redirects the Sun's warm away from the earth and thus colder temperatures...does the term vicious cycle come to mind?

    This is also an important effect.

    As I said...what goes up must come down...we just haven't a clue when it will come down, how much and in what form.

    Actually, I'd argue we have many clues. The air can only hold so much moisture at a given temperature, and it will eventually become saturated, at which point it will snow or rain (or sleet, etc.).

    Will the Global Climatic Disruption transform the planet into a New Earth?

    Does frozen animals found in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths, suggest the Earth transforms in a big way; quickly? 

    Lets hope the Glacial era isn't coming back to the Midwest.  

    I wonder if my property in the West will appreciate, when the mass migration occurs?

    Does frozen animals found in Siberia with tropical vegetation in their mouths, suggest the Earth transforms in a big way; quickly?

    I have not heard of this. Do you have any links? To the best of my knowledge, other than due to catastrophic events such as meteorite strikes or supervolcano eruptions, the climate does not usually change that rapidly. Of course, we are doing things to the climate that are "unnatural".

    "Berezovka Mammoth discovered in 1901 next to the Berezovka River in northern Siberia.  This perfectly preserved creature was found in the upright position with fresh grass and tropical plants still in it’s mouth.".......JUNGLE and TROPICAL animals .........A 90 foot fruit tree ……… proof that the vast northern region of our planet was once a tropical paradise.   


    The Coming Global Superstorm - Google Books Result

    Not too surprisingly, it seems that Discovery News is misrepresenting the actual facts. Here was what was actually written about the Berezovka Mammoth (Pfizenmayer, E. W. (1939). Siberian Man and Mammoth):

    Baron E. von Toll, the well-known geological explore of Arctic Siberia, who perished while leading the Russian expedition in 1903, had covered in 1890 most of the sites of previous finds of mammoth and rhinoceros bodies in carrying out his professional investigations. In doing so he had established that the mammoth found by Adams in 1799 buried at the mouth of the Lena in a crevice of a cliff from 200 to 260 feet high, and sent by him to St. Petersberg, had been frozen in a bank of diluvial ice on the slope of the river. This ice bank was not (as Adams believed and stated in his description of the site of the find) the remains of the old drift-ice whose crevices had been filled with mud. The fissures in the bank of diluvial ice on the Lena, which was far bigger than ours, had, according to Toll's findings, gradually filled with earth from the top downwards, and its upper surface covered with alluvial soil to such an extent that a fair number of the tundra plants were able to take root on it.

    Toll concluded that this particular Siberian ice was in no case recent, but was the remains of diluvial inland ice, which once covered the whole world, and then was gradually overlaid with earth, surviving to this day in the Arctic regions in ice-banks of varying extent.

    Our investigations confirmed his opinion. They proved that the animal had been preserved in the same way as Adams's mammoth, according to Toll, had been. In both cases the bodies had been enbedded in fissures of the diluvial inland ice. Then when the temperature fell the mud disappeared and the ice in which they were fast frozen had kept them, complete with their soft parts, in a state a preservation through the ages.

    Before I arrived at the site, Herz had partially dug away the hill of earth round the body, and so both the forefeet and the hind feet were exposed. These lay under the body so that it rested on them. When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice, which it probably came across in its wanderings, and which may have been covered with a layer of plant-bearing mould. After its fall the unlucky animal must have tried to get out of its hopeless position, for the right forefoot was doubled up and the left stretched forward as if it had struggled to rise. But its strength had apparently not been up to it, for when we dug it out still farther we found that in its fall it had not only broken several bones, but had been almost completely buried by the falls of earth which tumbled in on it, so that it had suffocated.

    Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."

    The bit about it being tropical was evidently invented by someone else. I should add that I don't trust the Discovery Institute one whit (because of their other lies), so I'm naturally biased against them. I could be convinced this particular piece of information is true if it came from a more respectable source.

    Do you question the other source too?

    Go back to page 197.

    Another source


    7. Siberian trappers have been finding the bones of animals and particularly the bones and tusks of the mammoth (Mammoth imperator) since the time of the Roman Empire and to this day there is still a steady trade with auction houses dealing with hundreds of tusks every year. Normally, these discoveries consist of a jumble of bones but in 1901, just above the Arctic Circle on the banks of the Beresovka River, a complete mammoth with fur, skin, flesh and internal organs was discovered allowing scientists to make a complete examination. The creature did not die of starvation but its mouth and stomach were full of buttercups and sedges in seed thus placing the time of death in August. The creature had a broken back leg and an erect genital indicating that it died of suffocation, probably frozen lungs. Interestingly, the hide was covered in thick hair but the skin had no sebaceous glands to provide oil to waterproof the coat. Northern foxes and mammals that live in the harsh Arctic regions all have the essential oil glands otherwise they would freeze and die when their fur became wet. This is further evidence that the Arctic regions were at one time temperate while for the mammoths and all the other animals to have inhabited this land there must have been sufficient food.

    Your source isreplete w/references to the bible as if it were authority. what part of "we regard the bible as myth" is giving you trouble?

    The author of the article keeps an open mind. What part of that is giving YOU trouble?

    Science does not contradict the Bible, only closed minded scientist do.The open minded ones recognize the truth.

    "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Isaac Newton

    Science provides proof that a cataclysmic event occurred, just as the Bible say’s it did.

    You can definitely list me as of a closed mind on the issue of according the bible any weight beyond what I give to similar works of fiction. It tells me plenty about the psychology of its authors and adherents; nothing of value about history or cosmology. Therefor, arguments grounded upon biblical pronouncements, no matter how earnestly and portentously delivered, are a waste of bandwidth. Bring reason, or shut the fuck up.

    Your highlighted section agrees with what I posted, but it does not support the tropical foliage assertion. The sebaceous glands observation would be circumstantial evidence, except that sebaceous glands also help animals to remove heat, so an animal in tropical climes would also be expected to have them. Furthermore, there are plenty of animals living in cold climates shat do not have them. These are the types of lies I'm talking about. I use that word somewhat cautiously, because in general I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but these people are either misrepresenting their knowledge levels or they are outright lying.

    These people give Christians a bad name. Luckily, I know several honest Christians, so I know better than to tar all Christians with that same brush.

    FORGET THE TROPICAL FOLIAGE, no need to get sidetracked from the main issue which was to discuss a Global Climate Destabilization; and I can provide proof that it did happen just as the Bible said it did.

    Supported by scientific fact and reason.  

    Quote: "These animal remains were not in deltas, swamps or estuaries, but were scattered all over the country... But last, and worst of all, many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright... 

    "Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture.

    "Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat…… 

    Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved." 

     —*The Saturday Evening Post, January 16, 1960, pp. 39, 82-83.

    Actually, that's not true, either. There were individual mammoths who were frozen, they were not "quick-frozen", and they did show visible signs of violence. Read the source I provided. The Saturday Evening Post is not a scientific journal. It's as bad as Time and Newsweek.

    That said, there have been "global climate destabilization" events brought on by massive meteor strikes and supervolcanoes. None of those resulted in the kind of quick freezing being alluded to here, though.

    They were quick frozen

    There were individual mammoths who were frozen, they were not "quick-frozen",

    “Mammoths found embedded in ice in Siberia are evidence that the last ice age came upon the Earth very suddenly ... they suggested if    . . had taken thousands of years to take hold on the Earth,

     the mammoths would have had time to migrate south to a warmer climate. Their excellent state of

    preservation is also evidence that

    they were quickly frozen after death—otherwise they would have begun to decompose.”  (Astrophysics and Space Science, vol 60, p 505). ... 

    New Scientist - May 17, 1979 - Google Books Result

    If this still isn’t enough,   

    I suggest you should review the video Mage provided and insert ......A God vs. No God 

     A risk management assessment.

    Note that it says they were quickly frozen after death. Not that they were frozen to death. Furthermore, their theory is that it took a few years for this freezing to take place (that was at the end of the small article). Also, it's worth pointing out that their theory is not the generally accepted explanation. (That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's also not logical to assume it's correct.) That said, this is a better source, at least.

    I suggest you should review the video Mage provided and insert ......A God vs. No God 

    A risk management assessment.

    If we're going to play "Pascal's Wager", I'm betting on the anti-Pascal wager: if there's a God, he obviously doesn't want me to believe in him, so why risk making him angry by believing in him? Or, if you want a different one, why not believe in all of the gods, since we don't want to risk angering any of them?

    We would need to factor this into the risk assessment

    “You must not have any other gods....... (exclusive devotion)

    Record of pharoah's gods and the Cannanite's gods, unable to stand against this GOD

    The other statement, tell me more, I want to understand why lack of knowledge is better?

    God,he obviously doesn't want me to believe in him, so why risk making him angry by believing in him?

    Your first part assumes an Abrahamic God, but that does not necessarily follow from the logic of Pascal's wager (although Pascal did assume it himself). I see no reason to assume an Abrahamic God is more likely than a pantheon of gods.

    To answer the last part, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. If there truly is a God (we'll assume singular for the moment), then he has gone to great lengths to hide himself from me. He's put me in a society where the Bible is considered the foremost authority on his existence, while confounding that Bible with stars apparently billions of light years away and fossils apparently hundreds of millions of years old. He's given me an explanation for thunder, lightning, the paths of the planets, and myriads of other phenomena that used to require a deity to explain. He's given me a brain that questions his existence. He allows natural disasters to plague his people. Note, I'm not looking for an explanation for all of these, I've already heard them. I'm just explaining my position for why it seems like if He exists, He really doesn't want me to believe in him. Thus, why would I risk angering Him by going against His wishes? Wink

    You must be the fastest typist I've ever met. and still keeping your thoughts together, that's good.

    I look forward to reading more.

    I'll be back.

    I have to take care of an elderly person in the AM  (Alzheimer's)

    It's been good, but I think we've probably exhausted this train of thought anyways. Dealing with an Alzheimer's patient can't be easy, especially if it's someone close to you.

    I agree,

    Theres a good article up on the main page on the left side about systems, I thought it was very good I

    Two more things:

    1) Lest I be guilty of deception myself, I definitely want to point out that I'm outside my field of expertise. I have advanced degrees in astrophysics and computer science, and have done a lot of research in the mammalian hippocampus as part of my work in artificial intelligence, but my knowledge of geology, biology, and climatology is strictly amateur.

    2) Simlarly, I should point out that the lead scientist referenced in that article, Sir Fred Hoyle, was a cosmologist (he died in 2001), and by all accounts a brilliant man who sometimes made invalid claims (even in cosmology). As far as I know, he had no expertise in the field of geology, biology, or climatology either. He did expertise in denying global warming, however.

    What, you mean the Discovery Institue is not a trustworthy source for scientific information? Aww man, I guess I will have to take back my copy of "Of Pandas and People" to the library. :)


    Well Verified Atheist, I think we're both going in the same direction on the issse, but on different paths.  I prefer to think long the lines of occam's razor that the answer for why is simple and trumphs technology. And the solution should be equally simple and elegant too.

    We're definitely sympatico, but I like to consider Ockham's razor in Einstein's phrasing:

    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

    In the beginning ...Wink

    Yeah, Ockham's razor is not always easy to apply. Some people think God is a simpler explanation, others think the Big Bang is. Some people think God using the Big Bang is. (Lemaître was the one first credited with coming up with what ultimately became the Big Bang theory, although he referred to it as the "primeval atom". Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest.) Regardless, for any of these one then has to answer the question what was responsible for the "creator" (be it God or the Big Bang). Theologists and cosmologists both have answers to these questions, and most people don't find these answers very satisfying. The traditional cosmology answer is that there was not necessarily a creation, with some cosmologists invoking a universe going through cycles of some sort or another (e.g., vibrating 'branes), and others (most notably Stephen Hawking) noting that at a true 4-dimensional singularity asking what comes before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what's south of the South Pole. (This one sounds pretty good at first, but a thoroughly true 4-dimensional singularity would seem to require violating certain precepts of quantum mechanics. That said, quantum mechanics and general relativity have never played well together.)

    I like the simpler explanation, the other stuff gets pretty deep....... in thought Laughing

    Latest Comments